Several friends and familiy have taken Jung these test noting an uncanny degree of accuracy, even when cross analyzed....

Considering by POD Topic, it seems to apply =)

Portrait of an INTP - 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This was a result from a different test prompted by Kari a delightful Spiritual Equilibrium Pod member...

You Have a Type A- Personality

A-       You are one of the most balanced people around Motivated and focused, you are good at getting what you want. You rule at success, but success doesn't rule you. When it's playtime, you really know how to kick back. Whether it's hanging out with friends or doing something you love! You live life to the fullest - incorporating the best of both worlds.

Do You Have a Personality?

Ever noticed how little we worry about now? We worry about what will happen. Even our regrets are projections, usually of the mess we've made for ourselves or someone else, and how it will affect us. Part of Spiritual Equalibrium is understanding that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people, and all of our projecting into the future, our plotting and planning, our expectations, manipulations, self-recriminations are the reverberations of a disintegrated soul - a soul estranged into an illusion born of ego. Practical solution: if you can't fix it, don't worry about. If you can fix it, don't worry about it. Blessings to all from the Most Comical Ambazzador Goodsoul Oh yea - I think both occurances of the letter "s" in Ambassador should be replaced at once with the letter "z" such that we will be known as Ambazzadors. If you like it, push it. Ahoy!

From the Dialogue Between Chris and Brian about Capitalism , Free Will andSpirituality and Zaadz  (Brian Links to this From His Blog, which is how I came to post the following, first in response to cameron, then to the thread in general.

98 days later cameron said:

 what a load of bollocks well, it's good to see that the ego is alive and well in a conversation about 'spirituality'. why not just STOP and recognise that there is NOWHERE that consciousness is not the ONLY THING that has an opinion on ANYTHING is the mind and as such, any idea of right or wrong, is inherently false capitalism itself is just another idea - and, in the general consensus of what that idea means, it would be reasonable to consider that it has failed but an idea, is only an idea f**k capitalism, f**k socialism, f**k spirituality and every other idea ideas are not reality there - i'm done storming the temple goodsoul :

105 days later (7 days after cameron posted) Most Comical Goodsoul said:

Without implying disrespect, because none is implied or expressed, and because I find relevance on whole, I would like you, cameron, to indulge a mental exercise: what would your response be (now work with me here) if I promised to pay you in three days the sum of what you loan me today and tomorrow, if you loan me $2 today, $2 tomorrow, and on the third day, I tell you any opinion you may have about whether the sum I pay equals the sum of 2+2 is inherently false, ergo you should be satisfied with whatever sum I pay?

John R. Searle (Consciousness and Language) discusses consciousness and intentionality at length in the title referenced and others. Its much too involved to detail here, but it likely has significant bearing on this entire thread (which I have enjoyed enormously and humbly thank all for their frankness and intellectual integrity). I suspect Searle would suggest that all of our expressions support varying degrees of authenticity, based on the degree to which such expressions may be relied upon as a legitimate representation of intent, and the degree to which my right to your respect and trust entitles you to mine.

I think much of the exchange between Brian and Chris bears this out. My best definition of reality, although dating back some 30 years, is this: “Nothing stays the same; everything else must change.”

Admitting certain lack of eloquence, this serves never-the-less to distinguish that which is real from that which is not real by requiring real things to possess some degree of orderliness which is to some degree transforming over time, however gradual the loss of coherence in the system (if there were not some degree of orderliness, we would have no basis by which to discern any transformation).

Linguistically, the negation is straight-forward and accurate: only “nothing” may persist in immutable form (although, orders of magnitude of “everything” is an interesting digression (google Cantor)).

Even scientifically, this assessment holds up. While it is stipulated that energy can neither be gained or lost (1st Law of thermodynamics) it is always changing form (2nd law).

How is any of this relevant to the idea of capitalism, or other socially endorsed forms of economic reality?

Here, cameron and I find some common ground. It is in the nature of language that the size of the gap between stated opinion and stated fact depends on the linguistic precision with which one might convey the expected behavior of a dynamical system, or that which is real. At minimum, any stipulation of right or wrong should require a common framework for understanding, and evaluation of that accuracy should demand close scrutiny of the logic underlying any inferences that might be relied upon to advance a position.

After all, language is a highly evolved and evolving (therefore real) tool for exchanging information about our environment. From rudimentary, however relevant grunts and groans, to the elegant precision in the language of mathematics, we rely on our ability to exchange information for our very survival. I believe the relevance of Zaadz is implicit when dialogue is elevated to the level I have found in this instance, and in many other exchanges in and around the Zaadz community.

Indeed, Zaadz and its entire business plan is a highly legitimate response to the current geo-political environment, even if profit were the only underlying motive even if that motive was obfuscated or blatantly misleading (which it clearly is not).

We live in a society that embraces capitalism and to deride that motive efficaciously, one should first look askance at Country Clubs of Worship taking separation of Church and State to the highest level of tax-avoidance possible. Question, are missionaries the duped advance of corporate egress into cheap labor markets? But I digress.

The legitimization of the Zaadz business plan, or any business plan is, in my mind, an integral function of free-market behavior, the premise of which is that those who recognize a need and fulfill it efficiently deserve reward. Take that as inferential, but the logic is born out in as much as the execution of the Zaadz plan remains responsive to the demand of consumers (in this case, users being the ones that both are and largely create the very product they consume). Thus, Zaadz sells an opportunity and delivers it to whoever is willing to expend their resources, in one form or another, competing against whatever lesser valued opportunities such consumers might not otherwise forego.

Would that others profit from something less noble then promoting the free exchange of ideas to address an environment in need of creative, committed and concerned individuals albeit, some may be looking only for a date, or worse, a business opportunity?

Another perspective that cameron drives into the exchange is this: we risk miscommunication altogether or mind-mucking ourselves when we attribute capitalism as a system with an intentionality of its own. This is the same argument of gun-control advocates who would control the intention of a murderer by focusing on the behavior of a device.

Harry, in Murray Schisgal's play LUV says, “Words are like a thousand pebbles bouncing around the inside of an empty tin can.” I hear a lot of pebbles, and many are mine. So I will close with the supposition that began this thread.

Chris said, “Anything that co-opts free will for its own purposes, however benign, however altruistic – is not and cannot be in service to the living truth of Being, simply because free will is its measure, and for Being to be realized in its truth, free will must be supported for its own sake.

If I interpret correctly, the depiction closely parallels the Christian stipulation that God resides in the Kingdom of Heaven (the living truth of Being), and endowed human beings with both dominion over all other creatures i.e. evolution’s top rung, and free will.
A fortunate first couple named Adam and Eve lived in a beautiful garden. There was only one rule, which was to stay away from a particular tree in the middle of the garden lest they consume the fruit of knowledge. One day, a serpent appeared and talked Eve into making off with a piece of forbidden fruit, and seeking an accomplice, talked Adam into taking the first bite.

This was not good, as both Adam and Eve fell from grace, which is to say they became self-aware, whereas before, they had no thought to give to any particular consequences. God was not happy. They were cast out of paradise and now nearly 2040 years later, to avoid burning eternally in hellfire and damnation people must not kill, maim or otherwise cause bodily harm to others (unless you suspect they have WMD or you live in Texas where we all pack heat).

Similarly, one can also care about others, within reason, go to communal structure and sing and pray and maybe get in to heaven (otherwise Being will not be realized in its truth).

I intend to not belittle Chris' expression or a Christian perspective - my hands are together flat as I bow to all in honor of the correctness of their own choosing. I have another path and that works for me: only through faith will to each be revealed, each according to their purpose, the work that we must do together for the good of all. Be nice! I didn’t say anything about faith in what, or whom. Remember, you all know but agreed not to tell me.

One fellow (sadly departed way to young) said it most memorably for me. He called it the choice-less rightness of it all. The point is, that if through faith we believe that nothing, absolutely nothing happens by chance, we will relinquish “free will” as an illusion born of ego.

We will comprehend that our only volition is how we experience each moment, and even that choice is not one we make in the sense of predicting alternative outcomes: it is simply a choice between discovering each moment, that which is real; or, creating a reality of our own - which is the interpretive, subjective and unstable mindscape that drives terminal uniqueness at the personal level and all of the perceived ills of mankind, including capitalism at its worst, at the universal level.

Luckily for you fine folks, I’m out of pebbles. But there is room in the can. So shake it up and throw some in. (No, don’t take them out and throw them at anyone.)

Blezzings to, and wishing all a profoundly great day!

The Most Comical Ambazzidor Goodsoul

By: Charles L. Johnson

Summary

Cost reduction is most effectively achieved only in close collaboration between the customer and a provider that truly understands the customer’s problems and is capable of providing solutions more reliably then the competition.

Understanding Cost Reduction in Terms of Reliable Performance

Unless competitive advantage derives from some proprietary capability or technology, a successful supplier will focus especially on the reduction or elimination of any source of variability in the production or on-time provision of goods or services, or variability in quality expressed as the durability and utility of its product.

Where markets provide generally equivalent products or services, cost reduction must be focused on reducing the hard cost and/or such hidden, implicit cost that variability in quality or delivery levees against the price/performance experienced by the buyer. Only a collaborative approach necessarily provides the greatest opportunity for the customer to benefit without deprecating the viability of the supplier. Why then is this approach lauded but ignored?

First, certain market behaviors are de facto standards reinforced over many years of Darwinian-Keynesian hybrid concepts choking out more meaningful mechanisms. While the notion that inefficient suppliers will be driven from a free market is fundamentally correct, it is a fallacious supposition that a supplier driven from a free market is necessarily inefficient.

Too often, predatory tactics and surreptitious back-room deals and social objectives stack the deck against those companies otherwise able to compete on a level playing field. Regulating prices is not the answer. But a blind referee who is told how to call the fight by bookies is hardly the alternative.

Second, true collaboration presupposes that the customer is relying on the supplier to provide the goods or services more efficiently then their own organization would otherwise make or perform for themselves – if the purchaser could create an equal quality product or service more cheaply, it would. But, since the procurement process typically stops with the cost of the contract price, the customer foregoes examination of how collaborative efforts to share information about component purchases or services for a given provision might otherwise achieve the highest value at the least cost.

Collaborative commerce relies upon transparency - the willingness to share raw product or service cost. While this should be an easy concept, both buyer and seller prefer to rely on auctioning to bring about the lowest cost, which is a particularly naïve behavior, however common.

Supply Contracts and Arbitrage

Most industrial concerns are typically oriented more toward supply contracts with extensive terms and conditions which, while legally relevant, have little practical impact on commercial discourse and remedies.

Also, while significant technological effort has resulted in lowering the cost of procurement activities, extensive pre-award qualification and validation of firms is usually followed by additional periods of post-award bid conditioning. The greatly inflated cost of these mechanisms implies a concern apart from improving delivered value. These mechanisms are as costly as the sweetheart deals and other unethical practices that once proliferated unchecked for which these practices targeted and did provided significant exorcism.

But perhaps the more subtle aim, intended or discovered was arbitrage of short-term market conditions. The absurdity is that outside of consumerism, business to business buying always undergoes off-setting market corrections and only those skilled at arbitrage or large enough to impact one side or the other of the supply and demand equation realize any benefit from these cycles; all the while, real increases in end-of-chain value is effected only by new technology or adjusted economies of scale (witness the incredible predilection toward merger and acquisition hallmarking global business concerns over the last 25 years).

The distinction for proprietary advantage exists only in the premium price that an exclusive advantage supports. But, since most businesses decry the price gouger’s moniker; where a premium is charged for the proprietary advantage, hard cost data is typically well obscured.

This is easily translated into marketing hype claims of confidential and proprietary information, as to imply that there is some legitimate claim to the value most companies seek to justify.

Most companies however, do not actually possess a real proprietary advantage; nevertheless, they hide their cost structure beneath a competitive cloak. This is either ignorant insecurity or blatant obfuscation and in either case, the wrong message for the prospective customer: without a bona-fide proprietary advantage, hard costs are easily surmised.

Price/performance Implies Higher Value – a Better Product or a Lower Cost Equivalent

The accomplishment of being the market’s leader is highly enviable. But the means for achieving this distinction are contrary in many ways to how many small and medium size businesses develop, and requires a discipline for long term thinking that most “get it while you can” profit seekers aren’t interested in and dependable, conscientious smaller concerns are incapable of sustaining.

Too often, cost reduction strategies are relied upon to support decreasing prices in a bid for market share. Ultimately, without a significant reduction in hard production costs, such strategies only decrease the delivered value by increasing transactional risk in the form of concealed non-conformance or late delivery. Worse, pure price reduction strategies aimed at squeezing the competition produce no real economic benefit and fail to focus on increasing net value delivered.

The only correct answer focuses on eliminating price/benefit variability. Eliminating price/benefit variability may only be achieved by adept companies that embrace and assert within their organization, a heuristic set of simple values, which if used to qualify and prioritize activities will:

1. Enhance management decision logic and execution;
2. Support coordinated acquisition of both external and internal opportunities to improve collaboration in every aspect of the organization’s interaction with the customer; and,
3. Focus process development on effective results that are measurable, not implied, and then rely on continuous process improvement to improve efficiency not to save money on human resources, but to free those resources to initiate further process development.

This is called a heuristic set of simple values because the effort exerted to satisfy a lower value that violates a higher value is counter-productive. But, when properly applied even minimally, the results sought are natural consequences of the intrinsic applicability of the values themselves and the priorities they establish.

They are presented here, as the conclusion to, rather then as the backdrop for the overall premise that collaboration with the customer is the most logical way to increase the overall value delivered to a market.

Customer Focused

1. Identify, understand and solve the customer’s real problems.
2. Market forces require continuous evaluation of how well existing product or service offerings solve real problems: all too often, real problems have little to do with already acceptable form, fit and function.
3. Don’t feed steak to a poodle when hamburger will do – the product does not define the problem.
4. Incremental improvements address incremental change and are valid opportunities in industries devoid of, or subject to slow technological advance. Otherwise, real improvement often requires a totally new solution and a commitment to research and development or analytics in advance of the industry norm.

Team Oriented

1. Developing creative resources implies an organizational mindset that expunges prima donna behaviors and exposes inadequacy and efforts to hide incompetence.
2. Human resources must be free to focus on those problems too complex for generalization.
3. A relationship with the customer is always necessary, however impersonal, if the value of the solutions delivered are to be objectively measured.
4. Surrogate ownership of the organization’s functions is vital for moral.

Process Driven

1. Eliminate variability in performance.
2. Effective business rules and processes free human resources to focus on complex problems: too often, efficiency is valued higher then effective solutions.
3. Processes must be designed to eliminate variability measured in terms of cycle times and defects; and,
4. Processes must support and sustain continuous improvement and adjust smoothly to broad swings in activity without sacrificing reliability.